As someone who has applied to a lot of jobs, I wish more job posters thought like you. It would take me 1 minute to find you a job posting for an IT position where they ask for a minimum number of years using a technology that hasn’t even existed for that many years.
I think this happens because some manager says “we want an expert in this technology” but then the job poster slaps some arbitrary number on that like “oh 5-10 years should be enough for an expert” with no awareness that it’s a brand new technology.
I mean to be fair, it’s a struggle between terms like “expert” or “senior” being too ambiguous and a time interval of experience being a poor indicator of actual proficiency. The corporate world doesn’t care though and ties the two together as a general rule because middle management isn’t smart enough to tell the difference. Thus, it boils down to “we’re hiring a senior level, it takes X years to reach that at our company, thus we expect someone to have that many years of experience at any other company doing a job similar to what we do”. Some HR peon then words it like “you need X years of experience using [exact technologies we expect applicant to use]”.
To tie this back to the OP: Most (?) people understand this is what is happening in basically all job postings where they list years of required experience to match their expected proficiency (i.e. I’m as good as someone who has been doing this for X years), but there are people who interpret this literally and think that if they have X-0.1 years of experience in that exact thing that they will be automatically rejected because it said X is required and they do not have X.
As someone who has applied to a lot of jobs, I wish more job posters thought like you. It would take me 1 minute to find you a job posting for an IT position where they ask for a minimum number of years using a technology that hasn’t even existed for that many years.
I think this happens because some manager says “we want an expert in this technology” but then the job poster slaps some arbitrary number on that like “oh 5-10 years should be enough for an expert” with no awareness that it’s a brand new technology.
It would take 15 seconds to look up “<technology> release date” and use that as a reference.
I mean to be fair, it’s a struggle between terms like “expert” or “senior” being too ambiguous and a time interval of experience being a poor indicator of actual proficiency. The corporate world doesn’t care though and ties the two together as a general rule because middle management isn’t smart enough to tell the difference. Thus, it boils down to “we’re hiring a senior level, it takes X years to reach that at our company, thus we expect someone to have that many years of experience at any other company doing a job similar to what we do”. Some HR peon then words it like “you need X years of experience using [exact technologies we expect applicant to use]”.
To tie this back to the OP: Most (?) people understand this is what is happening in basically all job postings where they list years of required experience to match their expected proficiency (i.e. I’m as good as someone who has been doing this for X years), but there are people who interpret this literally and think that if they have X-0.1 years of experience in that exact thing that they will be automatically rejected because it said X is required and they do not have X.
Bro… Your asking HR. Curb your expectations.
Yeah, don’t ask me my opinion of HR. Biggest boot lickers in the entire universe, change my mind.